brickipediafandomcom-20200229-history
Forum:Complete articles
There are many articles that are pretty short although they may be complete, since there isn't much to write about (smaller sets, themes and minifigures that appear only once etc.). These articles may never reach GA or FA status due to their limited content although they are in some way "good" nonetheless. In order to acknowledge such articles and distinguish them from incomplete ones we could come up with a new "Complete article" status. Complete articles get tagged with a green checkmark ( ) and should meet the following requirements. This would allow to appreciate articles like 6590 Vacation Camper, 1854 House with Roof-Windows, 6239 Cannon Battle or 8399 K-9 Bot, which are complete but are not really Good articles. There also needs to be a process to grant complete article status. We could either # put up a nom and vote page similar to BP:GAN (problematic due to the large number of articles) # discuss this on every single talk page of an article. # form a group that checks articles for completeness, similar to BP:BOR, but larger and more open. (every member of this group could instantly grant completeness status or after confering with another member) Nomination and votes for group membership ;Duties Users of the Completeness check group are allowed to grant completeness status to articles. They are also obliged to check if complete articles are still up to date when new information becomes available and must maintain quality control pages such as this one. Every sysop, member of the BOR or user with patroller status may assume this position without a vote but needs to put his name down below this line. Since this new panel is intended to relieve sysops and the BOR, interested non-sysops are most welcome. Be aware that this is primarily an obligation. If you are interested but not a member of the aforementioned user groups, try to request patroller status first. ---- 18:46, January 30, 2010 (UTC) -- Well, I guess someone has to get this started. * 22:33, January 30, 2010 (UTC) * [[User:Construction Worker|'Construction']][[special:contributions/Construction Worker|''' Worker ]][[User talk:Construction Worker| Do you need help?]] 22:54, January 30, 2010 (UTC) * Kingcjc 23:10, January 30, 2010 (UTC) * --Lcawte 09:56, February 1, 2010 (UTC) * Gladiatoring 09:59, February 1, 2010 (UTC) * 05:56, February 4, 2010 (UTC) * [[User:GameGear360|'GG ']][[User talk:GameGear360|'''360]] 11:44, February 5, 2010 (UTC) Comments * Anyone else wishing to be in this group? If not, should this page be closed soon? 02:03, February 3, 2010 (UTC) }} Nom and vote page ;Support ;Comments Article-specific discussion ;Support ;Comments Completeness check group ;Support # I don't think we need long votes to establish if an article's complete. As long as the users involved do check all of the criteria every time 21:10, January 18, 2010 (UTC) # 07:03, January 19, 2010 (UTC) # 08:31, January 19, 2010 (UTC) #Per Nighthawk leader. --[[User:Jedimca0|'Jedimca0']](Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 11:18, January 19, 2010 (UTC) #Now this is a good idea! -[[User:Nerfblasterpro|'Nerf']][[User talk:Nerfblasterpro|'blasterpro: ']][[special:contributions/Nerfblasterpro|'It's Nerf, or Nothing!']] 12:47, January 19, 2010 (UTC) # per above Kingcjc 15:41, January 19, 2010 (UTC) #Not quite sure what all of that means (I get the jist of it, but the last paragraph is confusing), but per Nighthawk Leader. (Even though they tell you not to follow the crowd, I think I can make an exception here =)) [[User:Construction Worker|'Construction']][[special:contributions/Construction Worker|''' Worker ]][[User talk:Construction Worker| Do you need help?]] 22:07, January 19, 2010 (UTC) #Takes too long otherwise. I think that htis works. 02:03, January 20, 2010 (UTC) #Ajraddatz Talk 17:39, January 20, 2010 (UTC) #--[[User:Agent Chase|'''Agent]] [[User talk:Agent Chase|'Chase: ']] 19:42, January 20, 2010 (UTC) #[[User:GameGear360|'GG ']][[User talk:GameGear360|'360']] 21:11, January 20, 2010 (UTC) # 21:14, January 20, 2010 (UTC) ;Comments * Well, it looks like the decision's basically been made- should we consider setting up the group now, or wait a bit longer? 03:55, January 21, 2010 (UTC) ** I think there is already an obvious consensus. -- 08:20, January 21, 2010 (UTC)